That leaves Carter, Clinton, George W. Bush, & Obama. Interesting note, Carter has outlived not too only his successor, but his successor’s VP as well.

Another interseting note is that both he and Bush were born in the same year.

When Richard Nixon died, I was sure that Ronald Reagan would be the next former President to go, simply because Reagan was two years older than Nixon, and I was right. After that I was convinced Ford would be next because he was the same age as Nixon (only younger by about seven months), but then Clinton had his first big post-Presidential health scare, and I wasn't as sure of who would go next anymore.

As it turned out, I was still right.

Then when I heard about Jimmy Carter's health problems, I started thinking it might be a toss-up between him and Bush.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

As I was only 7 (going on 8) when Reagan died, this will be my first time seeing and understanding the process following presidential deaths.

To be honest, I'm glad he finally passed. I'm sure without Barb by his side, life was a struggle. Sure, he had his kids, but living without your life partner has to be excruciatingly difficult, especially in later years. I'm sure he's in a much better place now. I know if one of my grandparents were to die, and both were in ailing health, the best thing would be for both of them to go at the same time.

His longtime friend and former secretary of state, James A. Baker III, arrived at his Houston home on Friday morning to check on him.

Mr. Bush suddenly grew alert, his eyes wide open.

“Where are we going, Bake?” he asked.

“We’re going to heaven,” Mr. Baker answered.

“That’s where I want to go,” Mr. Bush said.

Barely 13 hours later, Mr. Bush was dead.

Good to hear, although people like him tend to be tough and not always honest about when they feel weak. HW would never admit that his life was in shambles without Barb. Not that it was, to be fair, but I'm sure he was looking forward to seeing his missus again.

Politics aside, how many Presidents win a war and then go on to lose in the next election? Since Bush Sr. did his single term, every POTUS since then has been a two term office holder. That is a rather remarkable streak.

Rick

Not a USA President, but the UK's Tories under Winston Churchill lost the first election that was called shortly after WWII ended, resulting in Clement Atlee's Labour Party taking over, after which they promptly set about to nationalize the entire country.

I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

And then in that first debate, Reagan declared that "I will not make an issue out of my opponent's youth and inexperience". This was in reaction to some on the opposing side making hay out of Reagan's relatively advanced age at that time.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 “Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead”? Because that’s the only one I’ve heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 “Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead”? Because that’s the only one I’ve heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

Oswald enlisted in the Marine Corps in October, 1956. Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting. In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter. In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.

It was not a difficult shot, you don't even need to be a trained infantryman (like Oswald) to kill someone at 50 to 70 yards with a high-powered rifle at essentially point-blank range (in windage and elevation) for that rifle. A WWII rifle designed to hit and kill soldiers at 200 yards.

...So since 1932, only Carter and Bush were elected presidents who lost re-election (this wording being to distinguish Kennedy being shot and Ford succeeding to the office). That’s an entire lifetime or more of almost all two-termers!

That reflects our resistance to change.

It also reflects the increasing standard of letting the opposing viewpoint stand out. After a while, supporters don't try to voice their opinion because it's drowned out by all the yelling by vocal opponents. In fact, calls for impeachment are often heard before a president, or other controversial elected officials, have even officially taken office, so it's impossible to have them cited for something they never even did.

When it comes time for the next election, not only does the 1st term president have his supporters (after all, he did win his 1st election), but probably many who didn't like him didn't know his opponents, and decided to vote for the same guy.

This is often seen in local elections as well.

Note: I'm not being specific to any one president; current or former. I'm reflecting on the history 1995hoo pointed out.

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.Where do people dream up this stuff?

Lee Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy. Vincent Bugliosi's book _Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy_ nailed it with 53 pieces of evidence supporting the case that Oswald alone fired the shots, and then he spent the second half of the book listing every conspiracy theory that he could find and then debunking them.

Was one of the 53 “Oswald was aiming for the Governor of Texas, missed, and hit JFK instead”? Because that’s the only one I’ve heard that accounts for a) Oswald acting alone and b) Oswald pulling off such a difficult shot when he was such a lousy marksman.

Oswald enlisted in the Marine Corps in October, 1956. Like all marines, Oswald was trained and tested in shooting. In December 1956, he scored 212, which was slightly above the requirements for the designation of sharpshooter. In May 1959 he scored 191, which reduced his rating to marksman.

It was not a difficult shot, you don't even need to be a trained infantryman (like Oswald) to kill someone at 50 to 70 yards with a high-powered rifle at essentially point-blank range (in windage and elevation) for that rifle. A WWII rifle designed to hit and kill soldiers at 200 yards.

And, having been up the the Sixth Floor Museum (which I recommend by the way), and looking out that exact window, Oswald had to be a complete idiot to miss that shot. As it was, he did miss at least one that struck the pavement.

Logged

"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

Not a USA President, but the UK's Tories under Winston Churchill lost the first election that was called shortly after WWII ended, resulting in Clement Atlee's Labour Party taking over, after which they promptly set about to nationalize the entire country.

Attlee et al had already nationalised a lot of the country during the war. What they did after the election was formalise that for peacetime. Attlee was Deputy PM and Home Secretary until the election process started.

Churchill only became Prime Minister during the war because he was the person Attlee wanted in charge of the war. Attlee, after the Norway debates, held most of the cards - there was a clear need to form a broader coalition than Chamberlain's crumbling one, and Attlee was the hold out. So Churchill managed to get the Tories to support his War Government (which was a tall ask as most Tories hated Churchill) because Attlee was happy to join. And that was because Labour were de facto in charge of all domestic policy (the Tories did foreign policy/war stuff, and the money was joint) under Churchill's proposals.

While the 1945 election had a massive swing towards Labour in the legislature (which wasn't Churchill losing, but Tories losing - the party, rather than the man - if anything Churchill stopped it being even more of a rout), when you look at the change in the executive branch, there was no more change than the replacement of Thatcher with Major (as an example). PM unable to carry on thanks to cabinet plotting, with a new PM from within the executive branch taking over due to getting the backing of the legislative branch, and then appointing mates to replace supporters of the former-PM. OK, that the executive branch in the UK is formed of members of the legislative branch complicates matters, but it wasn't so much the people that ousted Churchill after the war via the ballot box as the people's representatives did by ending their support for him.

...So since 1932, only Carter and Bush were elected presidents who lost re-election (this wording being to distinguish Kennedy being shot and Ford succeeding to the office). That’s an entire lifetime or more of almost all two-termers!

That reflects our resistance to change.

It also reflects the increasing standard of letting the opposing viewpoint stand out. After a while, supporters don't try to voice their opinion because it's drowned out by all the yelling by vocal opponents. In fact, calls for impeachment are often heard before a president, or other controversial elected officials, have even officially taken office, so it's impossible to have them cited for something they never even did.

When it comes time for the next election, not only does the 1st term president have his supporters (after all, he did win his 1st election), but probably many who didn't like him didn't know his opponents, and decided to vote for the same guy.

This is often seen in local elections as well.

Note: I'm not being specific to any one president; current or former. I'm reflecting on the history 1995hoo pointed out.

Once you get below the office of President, it’s a lot easier to oust an incumbent that has served one or two terms, since the incumbent actually has a track record in that office (the challenger does not). Whether the Presidency is different because a President is limited to two terms, I couldn’t say.

I thought that Walter Mondale (still alive, IIRC) used the "Where's the beef?" line in a debate with Reagan. Clara Peller rules!

You may very well be right. The line was used by a hamburger? chain also - Wendy's perhaps.

That was Mondale's point. He said, "Whenever I hear you talk about 'new ideas' I'm reminded of that ad—'Where's the beef?'"

Regarding Bush, the government will be closed Wednesday for the National Day of Mourning. I don't work for the government, so I have to work, and I wonder whether VDOT will waive the HOV restrictions that day.

« Last Edit: December 02, 2018, 11:25:10 AM by 1995hoo »

Logged

"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

G.H.W.B. was the first president I could say I "knew". I was born during the Reagan administration, but I was too young to be able to recall much about him. I'll never forget G.H.W.B.'s strong displeasure with broccoli and at one point banning it from Air Force One.

Quote

"...And I'm President of the United States, and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli!''

I fully expected a bunch of discussion over whether or not Trump will go/will be invited to the funeral, but I wasn't prepared for the "Bush 41 had JFK assassinated" garbage that's washed up several places today.

Where do people dream up this stuff?

Apologies to the mods in advance, but that's been part of one of the many 11/22/63 assassination theories for years.